危險貨物海運的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法論文

危險貨物海運的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法論文本篇論文目錄導航：【題目】危險貨物海運的立法疏忽探究【導言】【第一章】【第二章】【3.1-3.3】【3.43.5】【第四章】【第五章】【第六章】【結束語/以下為參考文獻】內容摘要隨著化學工業(yè)的快速發(fā)展，每年危險貨物海上運輸?shù)臄?shù)量呈上升趨勢，危險貨物運輸一直以來是關系到海上財產(chǎn)及人命安全的重大問題，并且一旦發(fā)生危險事故，不僅承托雙方的利益會遭受損失，更有可能造成同船其他貨物托運人及海域的污染受害人等第三方的經(jīng)濟損失。因而，各國國內法及相關海上運輸國際公約都對危險貨物的運輸做出了較之普通貨物運輸?shù)奶厥庖?guī)定，賦予了承托雙方針對危貨性質的特殊權利義務及歸責原則。我們國家海商法中，對危險貨物并沒有明確的定義，固然明文規(guī)定了承托雙方的權利義務，然而在實踐中，一些規(guī)定卻使得船貨利益不對等，造成了承托雙方利益風險的不公平分配。另外，對于危貨造成的第三方損失，我們國家(海商法〕中卻沒有規(guī)定，造成第三方求償困難的局面。第一部分首先概括性的分析了危險貨物海上運輸?shù)默F(xiàn)在狀況，并通過案例分析指出危貨海運現(xiàn)存的立法疏忽，其后參考英國海商法，對危險貨物的定義做出了分析和界定，從狹義講和廣義講兩個層面入手，最后本文支持廣義講的觀點，以為危險貨物不應當只局限于內在具有危險的化學性或物理性的貨物，還應當包括本身性質無害，在航程中碰到特殊環(huán)境或條件卻引發(fā)事故的貨物。第二部分對危險貨物海上運輸?shù)南嚓P立法狀況進行梳理，分為國際公約、外國國內法、中國國內法三個層面，對重要的國際公約--(國際海上危險貨物運輸規(guī)則〕的發(fā)展、法律淵源及適用施行進行分析，并對其他海運國際公約的有關危險貨物的條款進行概括。在外國法和中國法下，分別對英美兩國及中國國內法的危險貨物海上運輸立法發(fā)展及相關條款進行概括性的表述。第三部分具體分析承托雙方的各項義務，并探究履行各項義務的標準。通過承托雙方權利義務的比照分析，研究得出在某些規(guī)定下，存在船貨利益不對等的問題，包括：1.由于(海商法〕中的免責條款和保險條款排出了承運人和保險人對因貨物包裝不當及標識不清造成損失的賠償責任，而托運人不享受任何免責條款及責任限制，一旦給船方造成巨額損失，可能面臨破產(chǎn)的危險；2.在托運人的通知義務下，對現(xiàn)實中提單上經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的不知條款及銹蝕條款進行效力分析，得出不知條款存在有效而銹蝕條款無法律效力的結論；3.當托運人將包裝及標識標記義務委托給第三方，而該第三方未完全履行義務造成承運人損失時，追償程序過為繁瑣，并且不利于保衛(wèi)托運人的利益；4.(海商法〕第68條，雖規(guī)定了承運人享有危貨的處置權，卻規(guī)定的過為廣泛，會造成托運人的損失。第四部分通過分析海上運輸國際公約和英國海商法案例，研究承托雙方的歸責原則，托運人對危貨的義務應當承當嚴格責任，然而在承運人同時存在過錯的情況下，承托雙方應當根據(jù)過錯比例分攤損失。我們國家海商法下，承運人承當不完全過失責任，并且本文建議，參照英國法將適航義務規(guī)定為承運人的首要義務，即若承運人違背適航義務，將無權主張免責條款。第五部分在第三、四部分的基礎上，通過分析立法背景及現(xiàn)實操作的需要，首先說明如此立法的原因和意義，再對上文分析出的船貨不對等問題，對平衡船貨利益提出如下立法建議：1.對于危貨定義不明，建議我們國家海商法使用列舉的方式，舉例列明危貨的種類，并且隨后規(guī)定一個概括性的表述，將廣義上的危險貨物也納入華而不實；2.當托運人將危貨義務委托給第三人，而因第三人的過錯造成承運人損失時，建議由第三人和托運人一同對承運人承當連帶責任。3.限制承運人危險貨物的處置權，建議規(guī)定若一個合格慎重的承運人在同等條件下，具有合理的專業(yè)能力同時保全船舶和危貨時，承運人不得銷毀危貨，承運人濫用危貨處置權的，應當給托運人賠償損失。4.參考IMDGCode規(guī)定的包裝方式，在我們國家海商法下對妥善包裝給出明確的標準。5.為托運人針對危貨產(chǎn)生的法律責任，提供責任限制保衛(wèi)。最后一部分對危貨運輸給第三方造成損失時提出立法建議，無論是同船貨物的其他托運人還是海域污染的受害人，在我們國家海商法下沒有一個專門的章節(jié)對其進行保衛(wèi)，因而建議我們國家參加(國際海上運輸有毒有害物質污染損害責任賠償條約〕，要求船舶所有人承當強迫責任險，并且為第三方受害方提供雙層賠償機制，建議我們國家盡快調整國內法與賠償機制，做到與公約的有效銜接。本文關鍵詞語：危險貨物海上運輸；船貨利益不對等；托運人權利義務；承運人權利義務；第三方損失賠償AbstractWiththefastdevelopmentofchemicalindustry,dangerousgoodsareincreasinglycarriedbyseaeveryyear.Thecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseahasbeenasignificantproblemrelatedtosecurityofpropertyandlifeatseaforalongtime.Oncedangerousaccidentsincur,notonlythecarrierandtheshipperwouldsufferloss,butalsomaycausethethirdpartytosuffereconomicloss,e.g.othershipperswhohavecargoonboardorvictimsofmarinepollution.Therefore,comparedwithordinarygoods,domesticlawsofseveralstatesandtherelevantmaritimeinternationalconventionsprovidespecificprovisionsconcerningthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseaandregulatespecialrights,dutiesandthedoctrineofliabilityfixationfortheshipperandthecarrier.ChinaMaritimeLawdoesnotprovidedangerousgoodsaclearconception.Althoughitstipulatesrightsanddutiesofshippersandcarriersinexplicitterms,thesetermsmightcausetheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsinpractice.Otherwise,ourMaritimeLawdoesnotexpresslystipulatethethirdpartyslosscausedbythecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.Asaresult,itissodifficultforthethirdpartytorecoveritslossfromtheshipperandthecarrieraccordingtoChinaMaritimeLaw.TheChapterOnegenerallyanalysesthecurrentsituationofthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseaandpointsoutlegalloopholesbydiscussingtherelevantcases.ThenreferringtotheUKMaritimeLaw,examineanddeterminetheconceptofdangerousgoodsonthebaseofthenarrowsenseandthebroadsense.Thisdissertationsupportstheopinionofbroadsenseandconsidersthatthedefinitionofdangerousgoodsisnotappropriatetobeconfinedtothegoodswithinherentdangerouschemicalorphysicalnature,butshouldalsoincludethegoodsthatareintrinsicsafebutcauseaccidentswhenitmeetsaspecialenvironmentorconditionduringtheseavoyage.TheChapterTwodescribestherelevantlegislationsituationconcerningthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseabasedonthethreeaspects,namelytheinternationalconventions,foreigndomesticlawsandChinadomesticlaws,andanalysesthedevelopment,legalresourceandapplicationoftheimportantinternationalconvention---InternationalMaritimeDangerousGoods〔IMDGCode〕。Generallydescribetheprovisionsondangerousgoodsinothermarineinternationalconventions.UnderforeigndomesticlawsandChinadomesticlaws,thischapterwillgenerallyintroducethedevelopmentoflegislationandtherelevantrulesofUK,USAandP.R.Crespectively.TheChapterThreedetailedanalysesallsortsofdutiesoftheshipperandthecarrier,andexaminesthestandardsofcompletelyperformingtheseduties.Itpointsouttheproblemsconcerningtheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsundercertainrulesbycomparingtheshippersrightsanddutiesandthecarriersrightsandduties.1.SincetheexemptionclauseandtheinsuranceclauseofMaritimeLawexempttheindemnityliabilityofthecarrierandtheinsurerintermsofthelosscausedbyimproperpackageorunclearmarkofgoodsandtheshipperisnotallowedtobeprotectedbytheexemptionclauseandthelimitationofliability.Therefore,oncedangerousgoodscauselargelosssufferedbythecarrierduetotheshippersfault,theshippermighthavetoconfrontwithbankruptcy.2.ByanalyzingthelegaleffectoftheUnknownClauseandtheRustClausethatareoftenstatedbythebillofladingunderthenoticeliabilityoftheshipper,itcouldbearguedthattheUnknownClauseisvalidbuttheRustClauseisinvalid.3.Wheretheshippertransfersitsdutiesofpackageormarktothethirdparty,ifthecarriersufferslossduetothethirdpartysimpropercompletionofsuchduties,therecoveryprocedureissocomplicatedandnotgoodfortheshippersinterests.4.AlthoughArticle68ofMaritimeLawprovidesthatthecarrierenjoystherightofdisposal,therightistoobroadandgeneral,whichwouldresultinthecarrierseconomicloss.TheChapterFouranalyzesthedoctrineofliabilityfixationwithregardtotheshippersdutiesandthecarriersdutiesthroughexaminingtherelevantmaritimeinternationalconventionsandthemarinecasesundertheUKlaw.Theshipperisstrictlyliableforthecarriageofdangerousgoods.Wherethelossisalsocausedbythecarriersfaultornegligence,thetwopartiesshalljointlybearthelossbasedontheproportionoftheirfaultornegligence.UnderChinaMaritimeLaw,thecarrierbearsincompletefaultliability.ItcouldbesuggestedthattheMaritimeLawcouldstipulatetheobligationofseaworthinessofthecarrierastheoverridingobligationreferringtotheUKlaw,meaningthatincasethecarrierbreachestheobligationofseaworthiness,itwouldnotbeallowedtoclaimtheexemptionclause.TheChapterFiveclarifiesthereasonsandsenseofsuchlitigationthroughanalyzingthelitigationbackgroundandtheneedsofpracticaloperation.ThenitmakeslegislationsuggestionsconcerningtheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsbasedontheChapterThreeandtheChapterFour.1.Intermsoftheuncleardefinitionofdangerousgoods,itcanbesuggestedthattheMaritimeLawcouldclearlylisttheclassificationofdangerousgoodsandthenmakeageneralexpressiontoincludethedangerousgoodsinbroadsense.2.Wheretheshippertransfersthedutiesofpackageormarktothethirdpartyandthecarriersufferslossduetothethirdpartysfaultornegligence,itcouldbeproposedthattheshipperandthethirdpartyarejointlyliableforthecarriersloss.3.Tolimittherightofdisposalofthecarrier,theMaritimeLawcouldprovidethatifaqualified,reasonableandprudentcarrierhasthecompetencetosaveandkeepthevesselandthedangerousgoodsatthesametimeunderthesamecircumstances,thecarrierisnotentitledtoperformtherightofdisposal.Otherwisewherethecarrierabusestherightofdisposalandcausestheshippersloss,thecarriershallbeliablefortheshippersloss.4.ReferringtothepackagemethodsintheIMDGCode,theMaritimeLawshouldprovideaclearstandardforproperpackage.5.TheMaritimelawissuggestedtoprovidethelimitationofliabilityfortheshipperintermsofthedutiesarisingfromthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.Thelastchapterprovideslegislativesuggestionsinrespectofthesituationofthethirdpartysufferinglosscausedbythecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.ThereisnospecificchapterundertheMaritimeLawtoprotectthethirdpartysinterestsnomatterwhethertheyareshipperswhohavegoodsonboardthesamevesselorvictimsofmarinepollution.Therefore,itcouldbesuggestedthatChinashouldjointheHNSConventionandrequiretheshipownertoprovidethecompulsoryliabilityinsuranceandthedoublelayerscompensationsystemforthethirdparty.Otherwise,thedomesticlawandco